Our Church and State website under attack for the second time this week
Click to enlarge
This evening I reprinted this superb piece by Lord Adair Turner with his permission:
Click to enlarge
Friday, October 30, 2015
This evening I reprinted this superb piece by Lord Adair Turner with his permission:
Sunday, October 25, 2015
Our Church and State website is not accessible for the umpteenth time - this time it's too many hits from a strange user agent called Typhoeus [WITH UPDATE]
Click to enlarge
It's pretty incredible. In SiteGround we have one of the best web hosting companies in the world, and we are paying good money to make sure we can cope with high traffic. Yet this evening we cannot access the site and for the umpteenth time. According to SiteGround, there are too many hits for our domain name churchandstate.org.uk from a strange user agent called Typhoeus. A Google search reveals that Typhoeus is associated with a Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS). A DDoS attack is an attempt to make an online service unavailable by overwhelming it with traffic from multiple sources. Great!
Update (6.04pm): Access to Church and State is restored. SiteGround: "We have blocked the network that is being used by that user agent and now the server should remain working normally."
Click to enlarge
'Let me recommend an important web site churchandstate.org.uk. Operating out of London this well-designed and exciting web site covers church-state, population, climate change and other issues. Check it out.' Edd Doerr, President, Americans for Religious Liberty
http://churchandstate.org.uk/about/
http://churchandstate.org.uk/letter-from-the-chairman/
http://churchandstate.org.uk/category/church-and-state-press/
If you would like to help us personally, please feel free to pick up one of our books (shameless plug, I know, but every sale helps us to work our way out of our precarious situation). There is currently five books available in Church and State Press here, and all proceeds from the first four of these books go to us with the authors' permission. Thank you all for all the support you have given us, and I hope we can keep our Church and State website going despite the constant threats.
Friday, October 23, 2015
Heavey v The Greater London Authority: We most certainly are not seeking to re-litigate in the County Court what has already been dealt with within Judicial Review proceedings
Mayor of London Boris Johnson
Last week the Greater London Authority (GLA) emailed us its application to dispute the court's jurisdiction by way of reply to Declan's claim against it in the Central London County Court for terminating our eligibility for our flat without the right of review or appeal. It came as a shock to learn from a solicitor yesterday that he thinks that a County Court judge will go with the GLA's argument that we are seeking to re-litigate in the Central London County Court what has already been dealt with within Judicial Review proceedings - leaving us vulnerable to two months notice to vacate our flat. As Declan points out in this email to a leading human rights and public law solicitor this evening, we most certainly are not seeking to re-litigate in the County Court what has already been dealt with within JR proceedings:Click to enlarge
BACKGROUND
1. On 17 May 2014 my wife and I were granted our current tenancy by Family Mosaic Housing Association as clients of the Mayor of London's Greater London Authority (GLA) Housing First programme with support from the Single Homeless Project (SHP), one of three charitable organisations funded by the GLA to operate Housing First within the Greater London area.
2. Housing First is an internationally acclaimed programme for entrenched rough sleepers, the core principle of which is the provision of permanent accommodation and non-compulsory support (Johnsen with Teixeira, 2010). These principles are contained in a funding agreement between the GLA and SHP dated 13 March 2014, which provides that "clients who meet the criteria for a Housing First offer will be offered long term tenancies…. Long term tenancies would mean for a minimum of two years with the possibility to extend and preferably for the lifetime of the client."
3. On 4 September 2014, less than four months into our tenancy, I received an email from SHP informing me for the first time that GLA Housing First was a pilot scheme culminating on 31 March 2015 and that both my wife and I would be referred to the Mayor’s Clearing House programme (GLA Clearing House), operated for the Mayor by St Mungo’s Broadway.
4. GLA Clearing House departs significantly from the key principles of Housing First, in that it does not provide the permanent accommodation and voluntary support characteristic of the Housing First model. Rather, it is a coercive programme that requires clients to comply with holistic support plans and "eligibility for flats, issued on two-year renewable Assured Shorthold Tenancies, terminates when individuals are deemed to no longer require support to live independently" (Johnsen and Teixeira, 2012).
5. No mention was made in SHP’s email of 4 September 2014 to a possible review of the decision by GLA to refer my wife and me to its Clearing House programme or how I could make a complaint and how such a complaint will be handled.
6. I wrote on numerous occasions to SHP and twice to the GLA protesting my and my wife's referral to GLA Clearing House, but to no avail. Finally, on 18 June 2015, I filed at the High Court an application for permission to apply for a judicial review against the GLA. The GLA in its Grounds of Opposition to my claim for judicial review stated: "The GLA, acting reasonably and within its statutory powers, was entitled to choose Clearing House as a replacement for the Housing First pilot."
7. By order dated 12 August 2015, the High Court refused me permission to bring judicial review proceedings on the grounds that my claim form should have been filed within three months after the grounds to make the claim arose on 4 September 2014, and that the GLA had not acted unlawfully by referring my wife and me from the Mayor of London’s Housing First programme to the Mayor’s Clearing House programme (the "referral decision"), thereby terminating our eligibility for our flat within one year of the commencement of our tenancy because we are able to live independently.
8. It is evident from SHP's email of 4 September 2014, judicial review pre-action correspondence and the GLA's Grounds of Opposition to my claim for judicial review that I have been repeatedly deprived of my right of review, and that the GLA has not properly considered the impact of its referral decision on my family life. For example, the GLA states at paragraph 13 of the Grounds of Opposition that its initial letter of 23 March 2015 was not a new decision but a response to my first pre-action protocol letter, and that it "has not reviewed the earlier [referral] decision or taken any new decision regarding the Claimant's tenancy".
9. On 10 September 2015, the High Court having established that the GLA has not committed a violation of the applicable law (and therefore with no grounds to appeal the JR), I filed a claim for damages against the Authority in the Central London County Court under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (the right to a family life). Contrary to the GLA's assertions, I have not sought to re-litigate in the County Court what has already been dealt with within judicial review proceedings. In the County Court I have challenged the GLA for depriving me of my right of review in respect of the referral decision that was made in line with applicable law, not the lawfulness of the decision to refer my wife and me to GLA Clearing House which was the subject of the judicial review application.
10. In my claim before the County Court I have cited Connors v UK (2004) in saying that the legal framework applying to the referral decision that has deprived me of a review has not provided my wife and me with sufficient procedural protection of our rights. In Connors v UK the European Court of Human Rights found that the existence of judicial review did not provide a safeguard to gypsies where the local authority terminates licences in accordance with the applicable law.
11. I have pursued this case through a claim for damages; nonetheless, I think it likely that a County Court judge will dismiss my case on the attached application to dispute the Court’s jurisdiction, filed at Court by the GLA on 14 October 2015. I am therefore looking for a solicitor who may be willing to contest the court’s jurisdiction up to the Court of Appeal. Alternatively, having been denied permission to appeal by the Court of Appeal, I may be left with no option but to appeal the insufficient procedural protection of our rights to the European Court of Human Rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to a family life) before we are evicted from our home upon the expiry of our tenancy agreement on 17 May 2016.
Declan Heavey
71 Queens Road West
London
E13 0PE
Tel: 0788 043 7681
Email: dheavey@gmail.com
23 October 2015
1. On 17 May 2014 my wife and I were granted our current tenancy by Family Mosaic Housing Association as clients of the Mayor of London's Greater London Authority (GLA) Housing First programme with support from the Single Homeless Project (SHP), one of three charitable organisations funded by the GLA to operate Housing First within the Greater London area.
2. Housing First is an internationally acclaimed programme for entrenched rough sleepers, the core principle of which is the provision of permanent accommodation and non-compulsory support (Johnsen with Teixeira, 2010). These principles are contained in a funding agreement between the GLA and SHP dated 13 March 2014, which provides that "clients who meet the criteria for a Housing First offer will be offered long term tenancies…. Long term tenancies would mean for a minimum of two years with the possibility to extend and preferably for the lifetime of the client."
3. On 4 September 2014, less than four months into our tenancy, I received an email from SHP informing me for the first time that GLA Housing First was a pilot scheme culminating on 31 March 2015 and that both my wife and I would be referred to the Mayor’s Clearing House programme (GLA Clearing House), operated for the Mayor by St Mungo’s Broadway.
4. GLA Clearing House departs significantly from the key principles of Housing First, in that it does not provide the permanent accommodation and voluntary support characteristic of the Housing First model. Rather, it is a coercive programme that requires clients to comply with holistic support plans and "eligibility for flats, issued on two-year renewable Assured Shorthold Tenancies, terminates when individuals are deemed to no longer require support to live independently" (Johnsen and Teixeira, 2012).
5. No mention was made in SHP’s email of 4 September 2014 to a possible review of the decision by GLA to refer my wife and me to its Clearing House programme or how I could make a complaint and how such a complaint will be handled.
6. I wrote on numerous occasions to SHP and twice to the GLA protesting my and my wife's referral to GLA Clearing House, but to no avail. Finally, on 18 June 2015, I filed at the High Court an application for permission to apply for a judicial review against the GLA. The GLA in its Grounds of Opposition to my claim for judicial review stated: "The GLA, acting reasonably and within its statutory powers, was entitled to choose Clearing House as a replacement for the Housing First pilot."
7. By order dated 12 August 2015, the High Court refused me permission to bring judicial review proceedings on the grounds that my claim form should have been filed within three months after the grounds to make the claim arose on 4 September 2014, and that the GLA had not acted unlawfully by referring my wife and me from the Mayor of London’s Housing First programme to the Mayor’s Clearing House programme (the "referral decision"), thereby terminating our eligibility for our flat within one year of the commencement of our tenancy because we are able to live independently.
8. It is evident from SHP's email of 4 September 2014, judicial review pre-action correspondence and the GLA's Grounds of Opposition to my claim for judicial review that I have been repeatedly deprived of my right of review, and that the GLA has not properly considered the impact of its referral decision on my family life. For example, the GLA states at paragraph 13 of the Grounds of Opposition that its initial letter of 23 March 2015 was not a new decision but a response to my first pre-action protocol letter, and that it "has not reviewed the earlier [referral] decision or taken any new decision regarding the Claimant's tenancy".
9. On 10 September 2015, the High Court having established that the GLA has not committed a violation of the applicable law (and therefore with no grounds to appeal the JR), I filed a claim for damages against the Authority in the Central London County Court under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (the right to a family life). Contrary to the GLA's assertions, I have not sought to re-litigate in the County Court what has already been dealt with within judicial review proceedings. In the County Court I have challenged the GLA for depriving me of my right of review in respect of the referral decision that was made in line with applicable law, not the lawfulness of the decision to refer my wife and me to GLA Clearing House which was the subject of the judicial review application.
10. In my claim before the County Court I have cited Connors v UK (2004) in saying that the legal framework applying to the referral decision that has deprived me of a review has not provided my wife and me with sufficient procedural protection of our rights. In Connors v UK the European Court of Human Rights found that the existence of judicial review did not provide a safeguard to gypsies where the local authority terminates licences in accordance with the applicable law.
11. I have pursued this case through a claim for damages; nonetheless, I think it likely that a County Court judge will dismiss my case on the attached application to dispute the Court’s jurisdiction, filed at Court by the GLA on 14 October 2015. I am therefore looking for a solicitor who may be willing to contest the court’s jurisdiction up to the Court of Appeal. Alternatively, having been denied permission to appeal by the Court of Appeal, I may be left with no option but to appeal the insufficient procedural protection of our rights to the European Court of Human Rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to a family life) before we are evicted from our home upon the expiry of our tenancy agreement on 17 May 2016.
Declan Heavey
71 Queens Road West
London
E13 0PE
Tel: 0788 043 7681
Email: dheavey@gmail.com
23 October 2015
This is an extract from the GLA's application to dispute the Court's jurisdiction, filed at Court on 14 October 2015:
Click to enlarge
GLA Principal Solicitor Steve Gee contends above that the Mayor of London's Housing First programme no longer exists; however, their website still lists the programme here. Are they lying to the taxpayer? This is Declan's claim that was issued by the Court on 11 September 2015:
Brief details of claim
The Claimant challenges the Defendant for depriving him of his right of review in respect of its decision to refer him and his wife from the Mayor of London's Housing First programme to the Mayor's Clearing House programme (the "referral decision"), thereby terminating their eligibility for their flat because they are able to live independently. On 12 August 2015 the High Court refused the Claimant permission to apply for Judicial Review, principally because his Claim Form was not filed within 3 months after the grounds to make the claim arose on 4 September 2014. It is evident from the email the Claimant received on 4 September 2014, judicial review pre-action correspondence and the Defendant's Grounds of Defence (in particular paragraph 13) that the Claimant has been repeatedly deprived of his right of review, and that the Defendant has not properly considered the impact of the referral decision on his family life. It has not taken into account the Claimant and his wife's needs and vulnerable position as rough sleepers for almost 4 years in total. The Claimant is therefore making an application to the Court for a declaration that the Defendant has acted unlawfully and an order that it reviews the referral decision and provides the Claimant with the opportunity to appeal to an independent tribunal if he is not satisfied with the outcome.
Value
The Claimant expects to recover damages for distress of not more than £1,000.
The Claimant challenges the Defendant for depriving him of his right of review in respect of its decision to refer him and his wife from the Mayor of London's Housing First programme to the Mayor's Clearing House programme (the "referral decision"), thereby terminating their eligibility for their flat because they are able to live independently. On 12 August 2015 the High Court refused the Claimant permission to apply for Judicial Review, principally because his Claim Form was not filed within 3 months after the grounds to make the claim arose on 4 September 2014. It is evident from the email the Claimant received on 4 September 2014, judicial review pre-action correspondence and the Defendant's Grounds of Defence (in particular paragraph 13) that the Claimant has been repeatedly deprived of his right of review, and that the Defendant has not properly considered the impact of the referral decision on his family life. It has not taken into account the Claimant and his wife's needs and vulnerable position as rough sleepers for almost 4 years in total. The Claimant is therefore making an application to the Court for a declaration that the Defendant has acted unlawfully and an order that it reviews the referral decision and provides the Claimant with the opportunity to appeal to an independent tribunal if he is not satisfied with the outcome.
Value
The Claimant expects to recover damages for distress of not more than £1,000.
Particulars of claim (threat to life and wellbeing, paras. 16-17):
Related blog post (14 October 2015): "Mayor of London's Clearing House service withholds financial data against us in defiance of court ruling"
'Let me recommend an important web site churchandstate.org.uk. Operating out of London this well-designed and exciting web site covers church-state, population, climate change and other issues. Check it out.' Edd Doerr, President, Americans for Religious Liberty
http://churchandstate.org.uk/about/
http://churchandstate.org.uk/letter-from-the-chairman/
http://churchandstate.org.uk/category/church-and-state-press/
If you would like to help us personally, please feel free to pick up one of our books (shameless plug, I know, but every sale helps us to work our way out of our precarious situation). There is currently five books available in Church and State Press here, and all proceeds from the first four of these books go to us with the authors' permission. Thank you all for all the support you have given us, and I hope we can keep our Church and State website going despite the constant threats.
Thursday, October 22, 2015
Heavey v The Greater London Authority: Declan's email to a leading human rights lawyer is sabotaged in transit
Mayor of London Boris Johnson
Declan has just found out that his email this morning to Bhatt Murphy Solicitors was never received. Bhatt Murphy ranked as top-tier firm in the 2015 Legal 500 Directory. He resent the email whilst speaking with a solicitor who deals with clients who have been subject to misconduct at the hands of the state.Click to enlarge
We have a long history of sabotaged communications. Only last month I blogged "Not even a registered letter to the Mayor of London's Clearing House service is delivered" so that Declan could increase his chances of getting registered letters to people.
Click to enlarge
'Let me recommend an important web site churchandstate.org.uk. Operating out of London this well-designed and exciting web site covers church-state, population, climate change and other issues. Check it out.' Edd Doerr, President, Americans for Religious Liberty
http://churchandstate.org.uk/about/
http://churchandstate.org.uk/letter-from-the-chairman/
http://churchandstate.org.uk/category/church-and-state-press/
If you would like to help us personally, please feel free to pick up one of our books (shameless plug, I know, but every sale helps us to work our way out of our precarious situation). There is currently five books available in Church and State Press here, and all proceeds from the first four of these books go to us with the authors' permission. Thank you all for all the support you have given us, and I hope we can keep our Church and State website going despite the constant threats.
Thursday, October 15, 2015
Central London County Court: Declan is told to apply under the Data Protection Act 1998 for a hardcopy of the Greater London Authority's application to contest the Court's jurisdiction
On 11 September 2015 the Central London County Court issued Declan's claim against the Greater London Authority (GLA) for terminating our eligibility for our flat without the right of review or appeal. Earlier this morning I blogged an extract from the GLA's application to dispute the Court’s jurisdiction, which we received by email yesterday. We received the GLA's Acknowledgment of Service in this morning's post but not its application to contest the court's jurisdiction. Declan was subsequently told by the Court's telephone service that he would only receive a hardcopy of this document from the court if the judge does not dismiss the case, and that he would therefore have to apply for it under the Data Protection Act 1998 before the judge's order if he wanted to be sure of getting the paperwork.
Click to enlarge
Related blog post (13 October 2015): "Letter of complaint re County Court at Central London: What will it take to get the Mayor of London's Greater London Authority's Acknowledgment of Service?"
We of course have even less doubt now that the judge will dismiss our case on the papers, and possibly mighty quickly, leaving us out of options on the domestic front because we have already been to the High Court on the matter (see previous blog, "We have started work on our grounding letter to the European Court of Human Rights (Heavey vs. the United Kingdom) to prevent being evicted from our home before Christmas")
We have started work on our grounding letter to the European Court of Human Rights (Heavey vs. the United Kingdom) to prevent being evicted from our home before Christmas
Mayor of London Boris Johnson
Yesterday the Mayor of London's Greater London Authority (GLA) emailed us its application to dispute the court’s jurisdiction by way of reply to Declan's claim against it in the Central London County Court for terminating our eligibility for our flat without the right of review or appeal. According to our Notice of Issue, they had until close of business yesterday to reply to the claim, but they had until the end of the month to either file a defence or contest the Court's jurisdiction. Without their defence, we expect the Court to quickly dismiss based on the papers alone, so that eviction proceedings can be initiated against us. We, however, will be appealing to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), having already brought the matter before the High Court. The same day we receive the court order, we will dispatch our letter to the ECHR to receive its application form. We assume we will not have to appeal a costs order against us (sought by the GLA), given the background to the case as outlined in this extract from an updated complaint to the United Nations that Declan is currently working on:Paragraph 38 of Declan's updated complaint to the United Nations
38. The Applicant wrote on numerous occasions to SHP and twice to the GLA protesting his and his wife’s referral to GLA Clearing House on 4 September 2014, but to no avail. Finally, on 18 June 2015, the Applicant filed an application for permission to apply for a judicial review against the GLA. By order dated 12 August 2015, the High Court refused the Applicant permission to bring judicial review proceedings, principally on the basis that his claim form should have been filed within 3 months after the grounds to make the claim arose on 4 September 2014 (see Annex 28, Greater London Authority: Order by High Court Judge Lavender, pp. 73-74). It is evident from SHP's email of 4 September 2014, judicial review pre-action correspondence and the GLA's Grounds of Opposition to the claim that the Applicant has been repeatedly deprived of his right of review, and that the GLA has not properly considered the impact of its referral decision on his family life. For example, the GLA states at paragraph 13 of its Grounds of Opposition that its initial letter of 23 March 2015 was not a new decision but a response to the Applicant's first pre-action protocol letter, and that it "has not reviewed the earlier [referral] decision or taken any new decision regarding the Claimant's tenancy". On 10 September 2015, the Applicant filed a claim in the Central London County Court against the GLA under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (right to respect for private and family life) for depriving him of a review and appeal of its decision to refer him and his wife to its Clearing House programme, thereby terminating their eligibility for their flat because they are able to live independently (see Annex 29, Greater London Authority: Particulars of claim filed at Central London County Court, pp. 75-81). [Emphasis added]
38. The Applicant wrote on numerous occasions to SHP and twice to the GLA protesting his and his wife’s referral to GLA Clearing House on 4 September 2014, but to no avail. Finally, on 18 June 2015, the Applicant filed an application for permission to apply for a judicial review against the GLA. By order dated 12 August 2015, the High Court refused the Applicant permission to bring judicial review proceedings, principally on the basis that his claim form should have been filed within 3 months after the grounds to make the claim arose on 4 September 2014 (see Annex 28, Greater London Authority: Order by High Court Judge Lavender, pp. 73-74). It is evident from SHP's email of 4 September 2014, judicial review pre-action correspondence and the GLA's Grounds of Opposition to the claim that the Applicant has been repeatedly deprived of his right of review, and that the GLA has not properly considered the impact of its referral decision on his family life. For example, the GLA states at paragraph 13 of its Grounds of Opposition that its initial letter of 23 March 2015 was not a new decision but a response to the Applicant's first pre-action protocol letter, and that it "has not reviewed the earlier [referral] decision or taken any new decision regarding the Claimant's tenancy". On 10 September 2015, the Applicant filed a claim in the Central London County Court against the GLA under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (right to respect for private and family life) for depriving him of a review and appeal of its decision to refer him and his wife to its Clearing House programme, thereby terminating their eligibility for their flat because they are able to live independently (see Annex 29, Greater London Authority: Particulars of claim filed at Central London County Court, pp. 75-81). [Emphasis added]
This is an extract from the GLA's application to dispute the Court’s jurisdiction, filed at Court yesterday:
Click to enlarge
The GLA contends that the Mayor of London's Housing First programme no longer exists, but their website still lists the programme here. Are they lying to the taxpayer? This is Declan's claim that was issued by the Court on 11 September 2015:
Brief details of claim
The Claimant challenges the Defendant for depriving him of his right of review in respect of its decision to refer him and his wife from the Mayor of London’s Housing First programme to the Mayor’s Clearing House programme (the “referral decision”), thereby terminating their eligibility for their flat because they are able to live independently. On 12 August 2015 the High Court refused the Claimant permission to apply for Judicial Review, principally because his Claim Form was not filed within 3 months after the grounds to make the claim arose on 4 September 2014. It is evident from the email the Claimant received on 4 September 2014, judicial review pre-action correspondence and the Defendant’s Grounds of Defence (in particular paragraph 13) that the Claimant has been repeatedly deprived of his right of review, and that the Defendant has not properly considered the impact of the referral decision on his family life. It has not taken into account the Claimant and his wife’s needs and vulnerable position as rough sleepers for almost 4 years in total. The Claimant is therefore making an application to the Court for a declaration that the Defendant has acted unlawfully and an order that it reviews the referral decision and provides the Claimant with the opportunity to appeal to an independent tribunal if he is not satisfied with the outcome.
Value
The Claimant expects to recover damages for distress of not more than £1,000.
The Claimant challenges the Defendant for depriving him of his right of review in respect of its decision to refer him and his wife from the Mayor of London’s Housing First programme to the Mayor’s Clearing House programme (the “referral decision”), thereby terminating their eligibility for their flat because they are able to live independently. On 12 August 2015 the High Court refused the Claimant permission to apply for Judicial Review, principally because his Claim Form was not filed within 3 months after the grounds to make the claim arose on 4 September 2014. It is evident from the email the Claimant received on 4 September 2014, judicial review pre-action correspondence and the Defendant’s Grounds of Defence (in particular paragraph 13) that the Claimant has been repeatedly deprived of his right of review, and that the Defendant has not properly considered the impact of the referral decision on his family life. It has not taken into account the Claimant and his wife’s needs and vulnerable position as rough sleepers for almost 4 years in total. The Claimant is therefore making an application to the Court for a declaration that the Defendant has acted unlawfully and an order that it reviews the referral decision and provides the Claimant with the opportunity to appeal to an independent tribunal if he is not satisfied with the outcome.
Value
The Claimant expects to recover damages for distress of not more than £1,000.
Particulars of claim (threat to life and wellbeing, paras. 16-17):
'Let me recommend an important web site churchandstate.org.uk. Operating out of London this well-designed and exciting web site covers church-state, population, climate change and other issues. Check it out.' Edd Doerr, President, Americans for Religious Liberty
http://churchandstate.org.uk/about/
http://churchandstate.org.uk/letter-from-the-chairman/
http://churchandstate.org.uk/category/church-and-state-press/
If you would like to help us personally, please feel free to pick up one of our books (shameless plug, I know, but every sale helps us to work our way out of our precarious situation). There is currently five books available in Church and State Press here, and all proceeds from the first four of these books go to us with the authors' permission. Thank you all for all the support you have given us, and I hope we can keep our Church and State website going despite the constant threats.
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
Mayor of London's Clearing House service withholds financial data against us in defiance of court ruling
Mayor of London Boris Johnson
According to the Notice of Issue I published in my previous blog post yesterday, the Mayor of London's Greater London Authority (GLA) has until close of business today to reply to Declan's claim in the Central London County Court that contests their termination of our eligibility for our flat without the right of review or appeal. We have not given up all hope of receiving from the Court the GLA's Acknowledgment of Service (see previous blog post, Letter of complaint re County Court at Central London: What will it take to get the Mayor of London's Greater London Authority's Acknowledgment of Service?). Under the Data Protection Act 1998 Declan will make a subject access request to the Court's Data Protection Officer for a copy of the document. One of the things that the GLA needs to explain to the Court is why the Mayor's Clearing House service continues to withhold financial and other data against us in defiance of a court ruling. This is an extract on the subject from an updated complaint to the United Nations that Declan is currently working on:Extract from paragraph 39 of Declan's updated complaint to the United Nations
Re The Mayor of London's Clearing House service operated for the Mayor by St Mungo's Broadway
39(iii) On 26 August 2015 the Applicant discovered that the information that came back from GLA Clearing House following his Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act 1998 failed to comply with a Central London County Court order dated 8 May 2015 requesting that it removes from its website unlawfully held information about the Applicant and his wife relating to their debts, their employment status and their alleged mental health condition (see Annex 30, Greater London Authority: Order by County Court Judge Brooks, p. 82). At a hearing on 8 May 2015, the Court found sufficient evidence that SHP had acted unlawfully in holding or uploading information about the Applicant relating to his debts, his employment status and an alleged mental health condition and ordered it to pay damages to him for distress of £750. The Applicant remains concerned from a fraud point of view that GLA Clearing House withholds inaccurate financial information about the Applicant and his wife which gives the misleading impression that their salaries as employees of Network for Church Monitoring constitute a debt that each of them has incurred. In fact the money donated for the Applicant and his wife's salary for the past two years is no-recourse i.e. donations the donors do not expect money back for. (Emphasis added.)
Related blog post (10 September 2015): Threat to life and wellbeing: Our claim against the Greater London Authority filed at the Central London County Court this afternoon
Re The Mayor of London's Clearing House service operated for the Mayor by St Mungo's Broadway
39(iii) On 26 August 2015 the Applicant discovered that the information that came back from GLA Clearing House following his Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act 1998 failed to comply with a Central London County Court order dated 8 May 2015 requesting that it removes from its website unlawfully held information about the Applicant and his wife relating to their debts, their employment status and their alleged mental health condition (see Annex 30, Greater London Authority: Order by County Court Judge Brooks, p. 82). At a hearing on 8 May 2015, the Court found sufficient evidence that SHP had acted unlawfully in holding or uploading information about the Applicant relating to his debts, his employment status and an alleged mental health condition and ordered it to pay damages to him for distress of £750. The Applicant remains concerned from a fraud point of view that GLA Clearing House withholds inaccurate financial information about the Applicant and his wife which gives the misleading impression that their salaries as employees of Network for Church Monitoring constitute a debt that each of them has incurred. In fact the money donated for the Applicant and his wife's salary for the past two years is no-recourse i.e. donations the donors do not expect money back for. (Emphasis added.)
Related blog post (10 September 2015): Threat to life and wellbeing: Our claim against the Greater London Authority filed at the Central London County Court this afternoon
This is the unlawfully held financial information GLA Clearing House retains against Declan, first created on 19 March 2014 and last withheld by GLA Clearing House Manager Kate Moon on 2 July 2015:
Other Debt: Yes
Debt details: Mr Heavey has an American benefactor who has financed his website in a salaried manner. This totals £6000.
Click to enlarge
Both of these declarations have been established by the Court to be false and misleading in their own right but especially in the context of other unqualified information that is withheld against us that speaks of our intention to obtain employment, not to mention our alleged possible qualification for Jobseeker's Allowance despite the fact that our salaries continue to exceed the amount permitted for either of us to make such a claim (see blog of 28 December 2014, "Heavey v Single Homeless Project: Will the Central London County Court rule we consented to declarations for online referral that we are paying our own salaries and that we are both mentally ill, and despite our photographic evidence to the contrary?").
Heavey vs. Single Homeless Project
County Court Judge Brooks
Upon being satisfied that the Defendant has incorrectly recorded information about the Claimant as to financial position, employment status and that he potentially has mental health problems and upon the Defendant confirming that it will destroy all electronic and paper information that it retains on the Claimant and his wife, Maria Heavey, and upon the Defendant confirming that it will contact St Mungo's Broadway and request that it removes from its website any information about the Claimant and Maria Heavey in relation to debts that they have, their employment status and to specially remove the word "grandiose"... (Emphasis added.)
Dated 8 May 2015
County Court Judge Brooks
Upon being satisfied that the Defendant has incorrectly recorded information about the Claimant as to financial position, employment status and that he potentially has mental health problems and upon the Defendant confirming that it will destroy all electronic and paper information that it retains on the Claimant and his wife, Maria Heavey, and upon the Defendant confirming that it will contact St Mungo's Broadway and request that it removes from its website any information about the Claimant and Maria Heavey in relation to debts that they have, their employment status and to specially remove the word "grandiose"... (Emphasis added.)
Dated 8 May 2015
Click to enlarge
Before Declan issued court proceedings against the Single Homeless Project for unlawfully holding or uploading information about him relating to his debts, his employment status and alleged grandiosity, the Chairman of Network for Church Monitoring, Dr Stephen Mumford, founder and President of the North Carolina-based Center for Research on Population and Security, provided the homeless charity with this strong rebuttal of their now fully discredited claim that both he and I are mentally ill:
Click to enlarge
http://churchandstate.org.uk/about/
http://churchandstate.org.uk/letter-from-the-chairman/
http://churchandstate.org.uk/category/church-and-state-press/
'Let me recommend an important web site churchandstate.org.uk. Operating out of London this well-designed and exciting web site covers church-state, population, climate change and other issues. Check it out.' Edd Doerr, President, Americans for Religious Liberty
***
We were evicted from our previous flat on 14 March 2013 because according to our then live-in landlady's ex-husband, Dr Nigel McKenzie, a consultant psychiatrist in Highgate Mental Health Centre, our flat was needed for somebody with a mental illness. Former MI5 whistleblower David Shayler also lived with human rights activist Belinda McKenzie in the same political 'safe house' for a couple of years until 2007. It is unfortunate Shayler then declared that he was the Messiah, became a squatter, and was subsequently ridiculed in the press for changing his name to Delores Kane. A New Statesman article dated 11 September 2006 featuring Shayler and Belinda gives no indication that Shayler believed he was the Messiah at that time; whilst a Daily Mail interview with Shayler explicitly shows he believed himself to be Jesus by June 2007. He has never regained his normal self.
The Esquire article below* is mentioned in a Guardian article dated 27 March 2012. It is an eye-opener, highlighting the monitoring and surveillance that Shayler had to live with back in 2000, and the contradictory briefings and slanders that were coming out of the British establishment and the media. The author, Dr Eamonn O'Neill, is a lecturer in journalism at Strathclyde University.
*On 2 May 2013, Issuu removed this pdf from my Issuu account following a copyright complaint by Hearst Communications. I had uploaded the article to my Issuu account in December 2012. In March 2013, when last I checked, the article had been viewed more than 15,000 times. It can be viewed here.
BBC PANORAMA: The David Shayler Affair (August 1998)
According to BBC Panorama, Shayler "caused the biggest crisis of official secrecy since the spy catcher affair". In 2002, he was jailed for seven weeks for breaking the Official Secrets Act.
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
Letter of complaint re County Court at Central London: What will it take to get the Mayor of London's Greater London Authority's Acknowledgment of Service?
Last Thursday Declan received a phone call from the Central London County Court office. He was assured that the (concocted) postal code they had on their database for our address would be corrected and that an Acknowledgment of Service the Greater London Authority filed at the Court last Tuesday would be mailed to him later that day. The office only offers counter services for urgent cases, and we have yet to receive this court document. Our first Notice of Issue was lost in the post. This is Declan's e-letter of complaint this morning to the manager of Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) Complaint Handling and Enquiries Team:
Click to enlarge
The Royal Mail managed to get this second Notice of Issue to us last week despite the concocted postal code:
Click to enlarge
Update (31 December 2015): Heavey v The Greater London Authority: Will the Central London County Court rule that our newly litigated case may not be pursued through a claim for damages?
Monday, October 05, 2015
Mayor of London's Greater London Authority terminates our eligibility for our flat without the right of review or appeal
Mayor of London Boris Johnson
This morning Declan learned from the Central London County Court that they issued his claim against the Mayor of London's Greater London Authority (GLA) on 11 September (claim no. B02CL457). We never received the Notice of Issue that the Court says we were sent on 28 September, but they have assured Declan that documents have been served and the GLA has until 14 October to reply to them. This is an extract from an updated complaint to the UN that Declan is currently working on that deals with the GLA's termination of our eligibility for our flat without the right of review or appeal:Paragraph 38 of Declan's updated complaint to the United Nations
38. The Applicant wrote on numerous occasions to SHP and twice to the GLA protesting his and his wife’s referral to GLA Clearing House, but to no avail. Finally, on 18 June 2015, the Applicant filed an application for permission to apply for a judicial review against the GLA. By order dated 12 August 2015, the High Court refused the Applicant permission to bring judicial review proceedings, principally on the basis that his claim form should have been filed within 3 months after the grounds to make the claim arose on 4 September 2014 (see Annex 28, Greater London Authority: Order by High Court Judge Lavender, pp. 73-74). It is evident from SHP's email of 4 September 2014, judicial review pre-action correspondence and the GLA's Grounds of Defence that the Applicant has been repeatedly deprived of his right of review, and that the GLA has not properly considered the impact of its referral decision on his family life. For example, the GLA states at paragraph 13 of its Grounds of Defence that its initial letter of 23 March 2015 was not a new decision but a response to the Applicant's first pre-action protocol letter, and that it "has not reviewed the earlier [referral] decision or taken any new decision regarding the Applicant's tenancy". On 10 September 2015, the Applicant filed a claim in the Central London County Court against the GLA under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (right to respect for private and family life) for depriving him of a review and appeal of its decision to refer him and his wife to its Clearing House programme, thereby terminating their eligibility for their flat because they are able to live independently (see Annex 29, Greater London Authority: Particulars of claim filed at Central London County Court, pp. 75-81).
38. The Applicant wrote on numerous occasions to SHP and twice to the GLA protesting his and his wife’s referral to GLA Clearing House, but to no avail. Finally, on 18 June 2015, the Applicant filed an application for permission to apply for a judicial review against the GLA. By order dated 12 August 2015, the High Court refused the Applicant permission to bring judicial review proceedings, principally on the basis that his claim form should have been filed within 3 months after the grounds to make the claim arose on 4 September 2014 (see Annex 28, Greater London Authority: Order by High Court Judge Lavender, pp. 73-74). It is evident from SHP's email of 4 September 2014, judicial review pre-action correspondence and the GLA's Grounds of Defence that the Applicant has been repeatedly deprived of his right of review, and that the GLA has not properly considered the impact of its referral decision on his family life. For example, the GLA states at paragraph 13 of its Grounds of Defence that its initial letter of 23 March 2015 was not a new decision but a response to the Applicant's first pre-action protocol letter, and that it "has not reviewed the earlier [referral] decision or taken any new decision regarding the Applicant's tenancy". On 10 September 2015, the Applicant filed a claim in the Central London County Court against the GLA under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (right to respect for private and family life) for depriving him of a review and appeal of its decision to refer him and his wife to its Clearing House programme, thereby terminating their eligibility for their flat because they are able to live independently (see Annex 29, Greater London Authority: Particulars of claim filed at Central London County Court, pp. 75-81).
And this is the claim that Declan hand-delivered to the court on 10 September:
Brief details of claim
The Claimant challenges the Defendant for depriving him of his right of review in respect of its decision to refer him and his wife from the Mayor of London’s Housing First programme to the Mayor’s Clearing House programme (the “referral decision”), thereby terminating their eligibility for their flat because they are able to live independently. On 12 August 2015 the High Court refused the Claimant permission to apply for Judicial Review, principally because his Claim Form was not filed within 3 months after the grounds to make the claim arose on 4 September 2014. It is evident from the email the Claimant received on 4 September 2014, judicial review pre-action correspondence and the Defendant’s Grounds of Defence (in particular paragraph 13) that the Claimant has been repeatedly deprived of his right of review, and that the Defendant has not properly considered the impact of the referral decision on his family life. It has not taken into account the Claimant and his wife’s needs and vulnerable position as rough sleepers for almost 4 years in total. The Claimant is therefore making an application to the Court for a declaration that the Defendant has acted unlawfully and an order that it reviews the referral decision and provides the Claimant with the opportunity to appeal to an independent tribunal if he is not satisfied with the outcome.
Value
The Claimant expects to recover damages for distress of not more than £1,000.
The Claimant challenges the Defendant for depriving him of his right of review in respect of its decision to refer him and his wife from the Mayor of London’s Housing First programme to the Mayor’s Clearing House programme (the “referral decision”), thereby terminating their eligibility for their flat because they are able to live independently. On 12 August 2015 the High Court refused the Claimant permission to apply for Judicial Review, principally because his Claim Form was not filed within 3 months after the grounds to make the claim arose on 4 September 2014. It is evident from the email the Claimant received on 4 September 2014, judicial review pre-action correspondence and the Defendant’s Grounds of Defence (in particular paragraph 13) that the Claimant has been repeatedly deprived of his right of review, and that the Defendant has not properly considered the impact of the referral decision on his family life. It has not taken into account the Claimant and his wife’s needs and vulnerable position as rough sleepers for almost 4 years in total. The Claimant is therefore making an application to the Court for a declaration that the Defendant has acted unlawfully and an order that it reviews the referral decision and provides the Claimant with the opportunity to appeal to an independent tribunal if he is not satisfied with the outcome.
Value
The Claimant expects to recover damages for distress of not more than £1,000.
Particulars of claim (threat to life and wellbeing, paras. 16-17):
'Let me recommend an important web site churchandstate.org.uk. Operating out of London this well-designed and exciting web site covers church-state, population, climate change and other issues. Check it out.' Edd Doerr, President, Americans for Religious Liberty
http://churchandstate.org.uk/about/
http://churchandstate.org.uk/letter-from-the-chairman/
http://churchandstate.org.uk/category/church-and-state-press/
If you would like to help us personally, please feel free to pick up one of our books (shameless plug, I know, but every sale helps us to work our way out of our precarious situation). There is currently five books available in Church and State Press here, and all proceeds from the first four of these books go to us with the authors' permission. Thank you all for all the support you have given us, and I hope we can keep our Church and State website going despite the constant threats.
